Defence help please ***updated*** now at WS stage

Coupon-mad

That's fine as long as you re-number Johny86's paragraph 5 onwards (you need all of that, onwards to the end).

This word needs changing because you didn't eat two shops!

The Defendant was a consumer of both a restaurant and a coffee shop at the Leisure Park throughout their visit. 

writeaboutnow

Great to hear, thank you for the reassurance... and the laugh!! Was trying to throw in a grandiose word, but I see now it's best not to over-egg the pudding!

writeaboutnow

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine as long as you re-number Johny86's paragraph 5 onwards (you need all of that, onwards to the end).

I re-numbered all the subsequent paragraphs, read it all through (in the wee, small hours) and now have a further query:

 - as a number of the latter paragraphs deal with the subject of fake debt recovery fees/damages in some depth, does it matter that I've introduced the point, made by Jonersh, (as below) within my earlier 'personal defence paragraphs'? 

 4.  As well as denying that the Claimant is entitled to parking charges, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has incurred any ‘damages’ or ‘debt recovery fees’ at all.

Just conscious that I may need to 'weave it in' a bit with the existing paragraph layout... or am I over-thinking it....?! (as per)

Thanks
 

Coupon-mad

I thought of that too but decided it doesn't matter!  Glad you are reading & understanding your defence.  Not all posters seem to!

writeaboutnow

It's taking A LOT of time to absorb it, I have to say, but gradually, it IS sinking-in! 

Another question, if I can - I spent months beforehand, in correspondence with the Claimant's solicitor, politely pointing out their lack of compliance with the PAP, and know that I need to make reference to this in my Defence, if I want to expand on this, later on in my Witness Statement.

Do I write a further (short) paragraph about this, following-on from my personal defence paragraphs?

Thank you @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

Yes you can mention it.  Could just tack something on to paragraph 2, as it doesn't need any detail.

writeaboutnow

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you can mention it.  Could just tack something on to paragraph 2, as it doesn't need any detail.

Does this read ok? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant draws the Court's attention to the Claimant's lack of compliance with regards to the Pre-Action Protocol throughout the initial process.

3. The Defendant parked in St Stephen’s Place Leisure Park in Trowbridge on the date specified and obtained a free “Pay and Display” ticket from the car park machine, which was then clearly displayed in their vehicle. The Defendant was a customer of a restaurant and a coffee shop at the Leisure Park throughout their visit. 

4. The Defendant contends that the expiry date and time details displayed on the P&D tickets issued from the machines on site do not offer any clarity whatsoever, to avail the users of this particular car park. On previous occasions that the Defendant has used it for leisure purposes, they have noted that the expiry details on the P&D tickets have allowed for an extended free period, well into the following day. 

5. The Defendant asserts, therefore, that they should not be held accountable or financially penalised as a result of misleading P&D ticket information, as well as a failing on the part of the Claimant to ensure that corresponding signage, pertinent to the facts, is both clearly legible and on prominent display. 

6. The Defendant further disputes that the Claimant has incurred any ‘damages’ or ‘debt recovery fees’ at all. In addition to which, there exists a discrepancy over the specified amount of this fake 'debt recovery add-on' - insignificantly referenced in miniscule font as an additional £60 charge on the Claimant's inadequate signage - and the inflated amounts of £70-£82, subsequently demanded throughout a series of intimidating and threatening correspondence, intermittently issued to the Defendant over the course of 18 months by the Claimant's associated debt recovery agents.

7. There is also the extortionate attempt to harvest the additional year and months of interest, which must surely be dismissed by the court. Interest is discretionary, not an absolute entitlement and it has been falsely calculated from day one on the whole amount. The Defendant also takes issue with the Claimant’s attempt to further enhance their claim with interest on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, which is reason enough to disallow the claim. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that this claim is successful, interest should be disallowed or significantly reduced (per Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd [2007] BLR 452).

   

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, if followed by the rest of the template.

Le_Kirk

writeaboutnow said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you can mention it.  Could just tack something on to paragraph 2, as it doesn't need any detail.

Does this read ok? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant draws the Court's attention to the Claimant's lack of compliance with regards to the Pre-Action Protocol throughout the initial process.

If you are using the defence template, then you do not need liability is denied twice, it is already in paragraph #1.

writeaboutnow

Le_Kirk said:

writeaboutnow said:

Does this read ok? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. The Defendant draws the Court's attention to the Claimant's lack of compliance with regards to the Pre-Action Protocol throughout the initial process.

If you are using the defence template, then you do not need liability is denied twice, it is already in paragraph #1.

Thank you for pointing that out @Le_Kirk - I have now amended this.